Journal of Project Management 10 (2025) ***-*** Journal of Project Management Consolidating sustainability efforts: The role of effective supply chain management in balancing economic growth, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility

Abstract

This study explores the relationship between supply chain practices and sustainability efforts, with the understanding that logistics strategies can have profound impacts on economic growth, society, and environmental conservation. The primary objective of the research is to identify ways in which organizations can improve their supply chains to achieve more favorable sustainability outcomes by examining the relationship between the supply chain and sustainability performance. Data was collected through a questionnaire designed and distributed to 43 companies in the basic materials sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS and Smartpls. The results indicate that supply chains in the basic materials sector in the Kingdom are operating effectively and positively, impacting the promotion of economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The insights from this study can help advance the understanding of how supply chains can drive sustainability improvements while developing a more robust economic framework for sustainability and resource management for stakeholders. by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. 5 © 202

Full text

* Corresponding author
E-mail address a.abdelraheem@psau.edu.sa (A. Abdelraheem)
ISSN 2371-8374 (Online) - ISSN 2371-8366 (Print)
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada.
doi: 10.5267/j.jpm.2025.4.001
Journal of Project Management 10 (2025) ***–***
Contents lists available at GrowingScience
Journal of Project Management
homepage: www.GrowingScience.com
Consolidating sustainability efforts: The role of effective supply chain management in balancing economic
growth, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility
Abubkr Abdelraheema*, Asaad Musaa, Mohamed Khoglyb and Yosra Elboukharia
aDepartment of Accounting, College of Business Administration - Hawtat Bani Tamim, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia
bDepartment of Accounting, College of Business Administration, University of Hafr Al Batin, Saudi Arabia
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received January 12, 2025
Received in revised format March
14, 2025
Accepted April 6 2025
Available online
April 6 2025
This study explores the relationship between supply chain practices and sustainability efforts, with
the understanding that logistics strategies can have profound impacts on economic growth, society,
and environmental conservation. The primary objective of the research is to identify ways in which
organizations can improve their supply chains to achieve more favorable sustainability outcomes
by examining the relationship between the supply chain and sustainability performance. Data was
collected through a questionnaire designed and distributed to 43 companies in the basic materials
sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS and
Smartpls. The results indicate that supply chains in the basic materials sector in the Kingdom are
operating effectively and positively, impacting the promotion of economic, social, and
environmental sustainability. The insights from this study can help advance the understanding of
how supply chains can drive sustainability improvements while developing a more robust economic
framework for sustainability and resource management for stakeholders.
by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. 5© 202
Keywords:
Supply Chain Management
Sustainability, Economic Growth
Environmental Stewardship
Social Responsibility
1. Introduction
Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) illustrates the critical interplay among economic advancement, environmental
stewardship, and societal responsibility. It integrates these dimensions to create a paradigm that promotes sustainable
development (Zailani et al., 2012; Gomes et al., 2022). The fundamental principles of SSCM highlight the urgent need for
supply chains to evolve from traditional practices, which primarily emphasize cost minimization and operational efficiency,
towards comprehensive and sustainability-focused methodologies (Charu, 2006). This advancement holds significant
importance, as the interrelation of economic viability, environmental conservation, and social justice necessitates integrated
approaches rather than disjointed initiatives (Mota et al., 2015). Effective SSCM improves organizational competitiveness
through differentiation and innovation and establishes executives who follow companies to be responsible for their impact on
society and the environment (Beske & Seuring, 2014). The literature suggests that organizations that integrate sustainability
in their supply chain strategies often witness increased loyalty and perception, ultimately improving their positioning in the
market (Rau et al., 2021; Bai et al., 2020). In this context, researchers like (Ageron et al., 2012; Rodríguez‐Fernández et al.,
2020) underline the role of the engagement of stakeholders in SCM, stating that transparent communication with customers,
suppliers, and communities can produce significant benefits while simultaneously promoting long -term economic benefits.
Different phases of the supply chain present unique opportunities for implementing sustainable practices (Centobelli et al.,
2023). The supply phase can adopt responsible sourcing strategies, prioritizing environmentally friendly materials and socially
responsible suppliers (Chen, 2022). These strategies include the assessment of suppliers according to not only cost and
delivery capacities but also their environmental impact and labor practices, so in cascade, the sustainability criteria throughout
the channel (Lin, J. et al., 2016) supply. Likewise, companies can implement cleaner production techniques during the
production phases to reduce resource consumption, waste, and emissions, aligning operational processes with sustainability
objectives (Fang & Côté, 2005; Jabbour et al., 2013).

2
In the research conducted by Wang, the supplementary effects of the economy may be enhanced through the optimization of
transportation routes and the consolidation of shipments. The carbon emissions generated can yield advantages for both
economic efficiency and environmental stewardship; if organizations embrace advanced technologies such as route
optimization software and electric vehicles, they will augment the ecological sustainability of their logistics operations while
simultaneously reducing costs (Wang, Y. & Shen, 2016).
According to Cope et al. (2019), it is essential to focus on the distribution and consumption stages, as these stages represent
essential components in achieving sustainable outcomes, as implementing strategies such as reverse logistics facilitates
enhanced recycling and reuse of products, thus contributing to waste reduction and promoting the circular economy (Ozola et
al., 2019; Rogers & Rogers, 1998). Furthermore, providing consumers with knowledge regarding sustainable consumption
frameworks can cultivate a more socially responsible demographic of consumers who support products and brands dedicated
to sustainability (van Hoek et al., 2011).
The literature delimits that effective SSCM aligns with economic growth and intrinsically links the social and environmental
dimensions that underpin sustainable development (Roy et al., 2018). Organizations can create systems that harmonize
profitability with more imperatives of social equity and ecological integrity by using strategies through various phases of the
supply chain, such as responsible supply, cleaner production, optimized logistics, and consumer engagement (Simão et al.,
2016). The continuum of sustainability in supply chains is not simply a theoretical aspiration but a practical condition for
modern companies aimed at prospering in an increasingly conscientious market (Thorlakson et al., 2018). Effective chain
management strategies that improve economic growth while promoting sustainable practices are increasingly recognized as
vital in the current panorama of the global market (Waked et al., 2023). Collaborating with suppliers is crucial, especially in
emerging economies where resources can be limited, but the growth potential is significant. Ahmed et al. (2020) point out
that the collaboration of suppliers improves operational efficiency and facilitates sharing of the best practices relating to
environmental management and social responsibility. By meeting resources and knowledge, companies can reduce waste,
optimize the use of materials, and reduce their carbon footprints (Chan, 2021). The collaborations that focus on long-term
relationships create a synergistic environment where sustainable initiatives can thrive, ultimately improving economic
performance (Mouzas, 2016).
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has conventionally prioritized reducing costs, enhancing operational efficiency, and
effective responsiveness to market demands (Yang, 2024). Nevertheless, the growing recognition of environmental
deterioration, the exhaustion of natural resources, and social inequity have instigated a substantial transformation in this
paradigm (Galanton, 2024). A diverse array of stakeholders—consumers, investors, regulatory entities, and employees—
progressively compel corporations to embrace responsible practices that yield positive outcomes for society and the
environment (Price & Ross, 2014). Following this transformation requires a comprehensive approach to supply chain
management that integrates economic performance with environmental sustainability and social responsibility (Luzzini et al.,
2014), and thus, effective supply chain management extends beyond enhancing operational processes and logistics
frameworks (Larson et al., 2007). It requires the strategic supervision of the comprehensive value chain, which includes all
stages, from the extraction of raw materials to the management of end-of-life products, focusing on alleviating detrimental
effects while augmenting positive contributions (Mangmeechai, 2020). This alteration in viewpoint calls for a review of
established SCM methods and the embrace of progressive tactics that enhance clarity, cooperation, and responsibility
throughout the supply chain (Li et al., 2023).
In today's complex world, the contemporary supply chain depends on efficiency and profitability and is inevitably linked to
environmental health and societal well-being. This complex relationship will be explained in this paper, showing how
economic, environmental, and social considerations are intertwined in the fabric of sustainable development. Through a
literature review, the main problem of the study is identified as how to identify the relationship and impact between the supply
chain in the basic materials sector in Saudi Arabia and economic growth, social responsibility, and environmental
conservation. The study is divided into several sections; the second section deals with the interrelationship between the supply
chain's economic, environmental, and social dimensions. The third section is devoted to 3. Literature Review: Section 4 deals
with the development of hypotheses. Section 5 discusses the methodology. Section 6 reveals the results of the field study.
Section 7 explains and discusses the results. Finally, Section 8 is dedicated to conclusion.
2. The interconnectedness of economic, environmental, and social dimensions in the supply chain
Achieving true sustainability requires a comprehensive vision integrating economic growth, environmental stewardship, and
social responsibility. The triple bottom line (TBL) concept often summarizes this integrated approach, which emphasizes that
sustainable practices must simultaneously address economic growth, environmental protection, and social well-being,
inherently interconnected dimensions. Neglecting one dimension can lead to long-term unsustainability of the others (Bux et
al., 2024; Amicarelli et al., 2024). To make real progress toward sustainability, organizations must actively manage their
operations and supply chains with all three aspects of the triple bottom line in mind.

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
3
2.1 Economic Growth and Environmental Stewardship
Linear economic models based on "take-make-dispose" principles have historically driven economic growth at the expense
of the environment(Dorsch & Kirkpatrick, 2021). By adopting circular economy principles within the supply chain, such as
reducing waste, reusing materials, and remanufacturing products, businesses can decouple economic growth from resource
consumption and environmental impact (De Angelis et al., 2018). Furthermore, investing in eco-friendly technologies and
processes within the supply chain can create new markets, drive innovation, and enhance long-term competitiveness (Zheng
& Li, 2023).
2.2 Economic Growth and Social Responsibility
The quest for economic advancement must never be pursued at the detriment of societal welfare (Potočan et al., 2021).
Exploitative labor practices, hazardous working environments, and the refusal to provide equitable compensation, although
potentially yielding immediate financial benefits, ultimately erode economic progress over time (Hunter, 2005). Such
practices result in diminished productivity, elevated employee attrition rates, reputational harm, and possible legal
consequences (Bengtsson & Stockhammer, 2021). Rather, enterprises should prioritize ethical procurement, adopt fair trade
methodologies, and allocate resources toward their labor force's health, safety, and holistic well-being. These allocations
cultivate a more stable, engaged, and efficient workforce, bolster brand reputation, establish consumer confidence, and
alleviate the reputational hazards of unethical labor practices (Yousefian et al., 2023). Moreover, a dedication to social
responsibility transcends the immediate workforce to include the wider community. Proactively assisting local communities
through the generation of employment opportunities, the establishment of skills enhancement initiatives, and improvements
in infrastructure while also fostering inclusive supply chain engagement by incorporating small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) from underrepresented communities can significantly contribute to broader economic progress and mitigate social
disparities, and promote a more just and equitable society (Bux et al., 2024). In essence, social responsibility is not merely an
act of philanthropy but rather a fundamental element of sustainable economic advancement.
2.3 Environmental Stewardship and Social Responsibility
Environmental degradation, including pollution, resource depletion, and climate change, disproportionately affects
communities, and these communities often bear the brunt of environmental risks (Nguyen et al., 2023). By reducing pollution
across all dimensions of their operations, conserving essential resources such as water and energy, and ensuring environmental
justice within their supply chain, companies can significantly contribute to promoting a healthier, more sustainable, and more
equitable society for all stakeholders involved (Fallah Shayan et al., 2022). This commitment mitigates harmful impacts and
enhances corporate social license, building trust and stronger, more collaborative partnerships with local communities by
demonstrating genuine support for their well-being and the environmental framework on which they depend (Amoako et al.,
2021). As a result, this can lead to improved brand loyalty and a favorable public reputation. Implementing environmental
management and social responsibility initiatives helps companies attract high-quality talent, as potential employees
increasingly seek to align with organizations that reflect their ethical principles (Malik et al., 2021).
Further research is essential to develop relationships between economic performance, environmental health, and social equity
in SCM. These frameworks should allow companies to adopt more holistic strategies that align with the United Nations
sustainable development objectives (SDG) (Elansari et al., 2024).
3. literature Review
Growing evidence challenges the idea that economic success is intrinsically in contrast with environmental responsibility and
social ethics (Garriga & Melé, 2004). The strategies of the supply chain that emphasize collaboration with suppliers and the
implementation of social sustainability initiatives can not only guide economic growth but also strengthen a commitment to
sustainable practices (Morais & Silvestre, 2018). This understanding of evolution promotes a more integrated approach to
supply chain management that recognizes the intersections between economic, environmental, and social results, opening the
way to a more sustainable future in various sectors (Yawar & Seuring, 2017). In the reign of the management of the sustainable
supply chain (SSCM), environmental management acts as a critical pillar that assists organizations in aligning their operational
activities with ecological conservation (Dubey et al., 2017). Effective SSCM strategies directly facilitate the reduction of an
organization's ecological imprint. Yu et al. (2014) Underline the need to integrate the management practices of the green
supply chain with operational performance metrics to create a harmonious balance between profitability and sustainable
environmental practices. By implementing green initiatives, companies can improve their operational efficiency and minimize
the consumption of waste and resources, leading to cost savings and improved corporate image. Longoni & Cagliano (2015)
Also affirm that developing sustainable practices that align with organizational operations is fundamental for organizations
that aim to improve their ecological performance. This integration is essential, as it creates a cohesive picture in which all the
levels of the organization are working for a common goal of sustainability. If designed to reduce the environmental impact,
operating practices can lead to innovation in processes and products, contributing to general sustainability.

4
Important study cases illustrate the tangible environmental benefits of effective SSCM practices. Esfahbodi et al. (2016)
Provide convincing evidence by analyzing companies such as Unilever and Procter & Gamble. These companies have
successfully adopted sustainable supply strategies that focus on reducing their dependence on non -renewable resources and
promoting relationships with suppliers that prioritize environmental management. The result of implementing these strategies
was not only a decrease in the consumption of resources but also significant market advantages since consumers increasingly
favor brands that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability.
In addition, the application of the evaluation of the life cycle (LCA) is another strategy highlighted in the literature that can
help companies minimize their ecological imprint. By evaluating the environmental impacts associated with all phases of a
product's life, from the extraction of raw materials to production, distribution, use, and disposal, companies can identify
critical areas for improvement (Zhu, Z. et al., 2018).
The existing literature corpus emphasizes the intertwined relationship between effective SSCM strategies and environmental
administration; by integrating green practices into their operational paintings and promoting collaboration throughout the
supply chain, organizations can significantly reduce their ecological imprint, improve their market positioning, and contribute
to wider social objectives as regards sustainability (Chin et al., 2015; Al-Ghwayeen & Abdallah, 2018).
This alignment of economic growth with environmental management is essential and reflects an evolving organizational
Ethos focused on sustainable development. Integrating social responsibility in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM)
has drawn significant university attention, elucidating the mechanisms by which organizations can face social challenges
while promoting economic growth. Yawar & Seuring, 2017 Claim that social problems - such as labor rights, health and safety
standards, and community relations - play a central role in the supply chain performance. Companies that adopt proactive
social responsibility strategies not only reduce risks such as disputes and reputation damage but also improve their competitive
advantage; by aligning the practices of the supply chain with social values, organizations can obtain better operational and
customer loyalty efficiency, which ultimately gives higher financial results (Heal, 2005).
In addition, the adoption of socially sustainable practices is increasingly recognized as a critical factor in the supply chain's
resilience. Negri et al. (2021) Highlight the importance of working practices in maintaining a stable supply chain. Ethical
work practices are not only a moral imperative; They directly impact productivity and quality. Research indicates that
companies prioritizing equitable treatment undergo lower rotation rates and a higher commitment of employees, which
culminates in an improvement in the supply chain performance(Gowen Iii & Tallon, 2003). While companies target greater
operational efficiency, the negligence of labor practices can cause disruption, increased costs, and a target reputation,
indicating the interdependence of social problems and supply chain efficiency(Seuring et al., 2008).
Community engagement is another essential strategy for achieving social sustainability in supply chains (Hutchins &
Sutherland, 2008). This approach actively involves local communities in commercial processes, thus promoting mutual
benefits; by investing in community development initiatives - such as education, improving infrastructure, and health care -
companies can promote goodwill and create a favorable environment for their operations (Hall & Matos, 2010). Previous
studies suggest that organizations that are effectively committed to communities improve their brand image and obtain
information that can stimulate innovation in their supply chains (Kalkanci et al., 2019).
The literature identifies social responsibility as a fundamental component of effective chain management strategies.
Companies committed to solving social problems through their supply chains can achieve measurable performance results,
strengthening the idea that social sustainability is integral to resilient and effective supply chains (Mohammed et al., 2023).
The construction of resilient supply chains requires a complete understanding of sustainability principles, which must be
applied in all phases of the supply chain, supply, and production to distribute and manage products of life (Giannakis &
Papadopoulos, 2016). This integration is beneficial and essential for companies to ensure continuity in the face of economic,
environmental, and social challenges. Resilient supply chains that emphasize sustainable practices allow companies to reduce
their vulnerability to the disruption of the supply chain, such as natural disasters, political disorders, or economic slowdowns,
by promoting flexibility and adaptability (Christopher et al., 2004).
A study by Bastas and Liyanage (2018) suggests a direct relationship between sustainability and improved resilience. Firms
prioritizing sustainable practices—such as reducing waste, improving resource use, and promoting ethical labor standards—
are better equipped to deal with unexpected events (Lèbre et al., 2017). This is widely attributed to the proactive risk
management strategies inherent in sustainable supply chain executives, who encourage companies to identify potential risks
by promoting a culture of sustainability. Additionally, implementing sustainability strategies throughout the supply chain
creates interdependence among suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders, enhancing resilience (Cao & Zhang, 2011).
Conversely, a lack of attention to sustainability can lead to increased vulnerability. Companies based solely on traditional
practices can be poorly prepared for the consequences of societal pressures and regulatory changes requiring more sustainable
approaches. The risks associated with reputation damage, regulatory fines, and customer loyalty loss can have disastrous
implications, highlighting the need for organizations to integrate sustainability into their basic operational strategies (Kumar
et al., 2021). Thus, the alignment of sustainability and resilience reduces not only the risks intrinsically linked to the

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
5
disturbances of the supply chain but also promotes the creation of long -term value by improving global organizational
robustness (Blome et al., 2014).
The synthesis of these three-economic, environmental, social, and social dimensions is a multifaceted and strategic approach
to sustainability, thus inaugurating the concept of management of the sustainable supply chain (SSCM) (David et al., 2024).
Scholars such as Varsei et al. (2014) and Alzoubi & Ahmed, (2020) underline the need for a framework that intertwines these
elements thoroughly; this underlines the idea that successful SCM practices cannot be isolated from their wider impacts and
responsibilities since they operate within complex systems that connect various interested parties and interconnected
processes.
The adoption of SSCM requires an understanding of the strategic practices that can be used in various stages of the supply
chain to improve the results of sustainability Sweeney et al., (2018); Shad et al., (2019) Show that the integration of
considerations on sustainability from contracts up to distribution improves not only operational efficiency but also the
commitment of the interested parties and loyalty to the brand.
4. Hypotheses Development
4.1 Supply Chain Management and Economic Growth
Effective supply chain management (SCM) considerably influences the economic growth of contemporary economies,
mainly by improving efficiency, reducing costs, promoting innovation, and taking advantage of globalization. While
companies strive to maintain a competitive advantage, the SCM strategies that align with these dimensions are increasingly
vita (Mahmood et al., 2024).
The main argument is that supply chain efficiency leads to increased productivity and economic prosperity. Effective supply
chains allow companies to minimize waste and optimize resource allocation, which is crucial in a globalized economy where
competition is fierce (Coyle et al., 2021); by integrating reduced management techniques and focusing on process
improvements, companies can achieve better use of resources and operational efficiency, which contributes directly to
economic growth (Mangan & Lalwani, 2016). In addition, incorporating Industry 4.0 technologies in the supply chain
processes has improved operational performance considerably, thus stimulating economic growth (Ghadge et al., 2020).
Cost reduction is also a critical factor that illustrates the effectiveness of SCM in the influence of economic growth. Reducing
production and logistics costs allows companies to offer competitive prices, attract customers, and increase market share
(Esfahbodi et al., 2016). In addition, sustainable practices in supply chains, such as the management of the green supply chain,
have shown potential in the balance of environmental performance and cost savings, leading to better Economic results (Khan
et al., 2018). These environmentally friendly practices also open the way to innovation in products and services, improve
organizational performance, and indirectly support economic development (Turker & Altuntas, 2014).
Innovation is another essential aspect of an effective SCM that stimulates economic growth. Effective supply chain strategies
facilitate information sharing and collaborative networks that are crucial to promote innovation (Qrunfleh & Tarafdar, 2014);
by encouraging partnerships and alliances, companies can take advantage of knowledge and resources, leading to the
development of new technologies and practices which not only benefit the organization but also contribute to broader
economic progress (Giannakis & Papadopoulos, 2016). In addition, the emphasis on innovation within supply chains helps
organizations to adapt to a rapidly evolving market dynamic, thus ensuring long -term economic resilience (Govindan, 2018).
Globalization plays a central role in improving the impact of SCM on economic growth. Global supply chains allow
companies to source materials, work more effectively, and expand their markets to a global audience (Stevens & Johnson,
2016). Operating internationally allows companies to achieve economies of scale, reduce costs, and improve profitability,
which can considerably strengthen economic growth (Hines, 2014). In addition, globalization-based competition forces
companies to innovate continuously, thus creating new products and services that improve consumers' well-being and
stimulate economic activity (Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018). The interdependence of economies through global supply chains
also facilitates knowledge transfer and technological progress through borders, promoting international economic growth
(Khan et al., 2020).
In addition, integrating sustainable practices in global supply chains contributes positively to economic and environmental
results (Sandra Marcelline et al., 2022). Companies have been shown that green practices are often rewarded not only by cost
savings but also with better brand reputation and customer loyalty, which can improve their global economic contribution
(Rajeev et al., 2017).
The obstacles to an effective SCM, especially in developing economies, indicate that although there is a potential for
significant economic gains, there are also challenges that must be met to maximize the efficiency of SCM (Mangla et al.,
2018). These obstacles could include a lack of infrastructure, inadequate technology, and insufficient training, which hinder
the potential advantages of effective and sustainable supply chain practices (De Angelis et al., 2018).

6
In conclusion, the effective management of the supply chain is an essential engine of the economic growth of contemporary
economies, influenced by factors such as efficiency, cost reduction, innovation, and globalization. While companies sail in
the complexities of global supply chains, the positive economic impacts of strategic SCM practices highlight the importance
of continuous investment and concentration in this area to ensure sustained economic progress in an increasingly
interconnected world. This study presents the first hypothesis grounded in the theoretical interpretations discussed above:
Hypothesis 1: A positive relationship exists between supply chain management and economic growth.
4.2 Supply Chain Management and Environmental Stewardship
The effective practices of the supply chain (SCM) management play a crucial role in improving sustainability and
environmental protection. By implementing innovative strategies, organizations can reduce their carbon footprints and
minimize resource waste, thus contributing to global sustainability efforts. Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM),
highlighted by Yildiz Çankaya and Sezen (2019), is essential to improve sustainability performance by integrating
environmental considerations into the supply chain processes. This approach improves operational efficiency and promotes a
competitive advantage in an increasingly ecological market.
Integrating Green Human Resource Management (GHRM) practices in the supply chain strategies further amplifies
sustainability results. Zaid et al. (2018) found that when companies invest in hiring and training employees on sustainability
practices, they experience significant gains in sustainable performance metrics. This indicates that human capital is
fundamental in driving effective GSCM since expert employees can implement innovative solutions that substantially reduce
environmental impact.
In addition, the dynamic skills of the supply chains are essential to support these practices over time. Hong et al. (2018)
Stressed that companies with solid management capacity of the sustainable supply chain (SSCM) can better adapt to market
changes and improve their corporate performance. This adaptability is essential to integrate green practices perfectly within
the traditional processes of the supply chain, making environmental sustainability a central component of the corporate
strategy.
Systematic reviews of the existing paintings must also support the transition to sustainable practices. Koberg & Longoni,
(2019) Conducted a global review of the sustainable practices of the supply chain and noticed the importance of global
collaborations in achieving optimal sustainability performance. By understanding the success models of various sectors,
companies can adopt appropriate strategies that resonate with their specific operational contexts, thus improving their
sustainability efforts.
Institutional pressures play a significant role in modeling GSCM practices. Khan et al. (2018) Have shown that economic
growth is intertwined with effective GSCM since companies are forced to adhere to the environmental regulations and
expectations of the company, thus reducing their carbon footprints. The alignment of the supply chain practices with eco-
incidental objectives has been shown to guide greater efficiency of resources (Khan & Qianli, 2017), which is essential to
reducing overall waste.
Innovation in the practices of the supply chain is also fundamental. For example, the use of Big Data Analytics, as discussed
by Bag et al. (2020), can provide insights that lead to a decision -improving the use of resources and the reduction of waste.
The strategic distribution of these technologies not only translates into improved operations but also supports sustainability
objectives.
In addition, involving customers and interested parties in green initiatives is essential. Zhu, Q. et al. (2017) discovered that
the relational governance of customers contributes significantly to improving environmental and economic performance
through GSCM. This collaborative approach promotes a culture of sustainability that permeates the entire supply chain,
ultimately to shared environmental benefits. Knowledge management has emerged as a critical factor in improving the
performance of the sustainable supply chain. Lim et al. (2017) stated that companies that exploit the mechanisms of sharing
knowledge within their supply chains can better implement green practices, thus obtaining higher performance results. This
reflects a holistic approach to sustainability, integrating insights from various functions within the organization.
Environmental management systems must be distributed through the functions of the supply chain to encourage a unified
approach to sustainability. Longoni et al. (2018) Indicated that the connection of Ghor with GSCM practices improves
environmental results, suggesting that workforce involvement is essential to achieve wider sustainability objectives.
Collaboration in the supply chains is essential to advance sustainable practices, particularly in agriculture. (Thomson et al.,
2017) They observed that science -based collaborations create opportunities to improve sustainability between supply chains
in this sector. These partnerships allow the sharing of best practices and innovative solutions that improve environmental and
operational metrics. This study presents the second hypothesis grounded in the theoretical interpretations discussed above:
Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between supply chain management and environmental stewardship.

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
7
4.3 Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility
Effective supply chain management practices (SCM) are increasingly recognized as fundamental to improve social
responsibility within global commercial operations, mainly through sustainability, ethical supply, and the impact on the
community. The supply chains are complex ecosystems that can significantly influence environmental and social results, thus
requesting a strategic approach to the ism that aligns with companies' social responsibility (Mejías et al., 2016).
The research highlights the positive effects of the green supply chain (GSCM) management practices on sustainability
performance. Yildiz Çankaya and Sezen (2019) Point out that incorporating green practices within the supply chain increases
sustainability and improves financial services, thus creating a convincing business case for responsible SCM. These practices
may include waste reduction initiatives, energy efficiency improvements, and supply of sustainable materials. By completing
this perspective, Wan C. et al. (2020) Illustrate how GSCM can improve the social responsibility of companies, particularly
if coupled with advanced data analysis features, thus promoting greater responsibility between supply chain operations.
Ethical supply remains a critical aspect of socially responsible supply chains. Khokhar et al. (2020) Underline the importance
of evaluating suppliers' practices to ensure they align with social sustainability objectives. Ethical supply practices can
strengthen a company's reputation and lead to customer loyalty, led by the demand for consumer responsibility and
transparency in the supply chains (Brewer, 2019; Modica et al., 2020). The study of the relationship between suppliers' social
performance and supply chain integration reveals that the share capital plays a fundamental role, suggesting that collaboration
can improve the overall impact of CSR initiatives (Alghababsheh & Gallear, 2021).
In addition, the impact of effective SCM practices extends to the community's commitment. Integrating social responsibility
initiatives in the supply chains can encourage the development and resilience of the community. Modak et al. (2019) Present
a model in which company donations are integrated into the supply chain to raise social results, demonstrating a double
advantage of contributing to the community's well-being while satisfying the company's ethical mandates. This alignment of
the community's interests with commercial operations is taken up in the research that connects CSR practices to better green
innovation, where dynamic skills facilitate adopting sustainable practices (Yuan & Cao, 2022). In particular, the circular
economy framework is fundamental in promoting sustainable SCM. Kazancoglu et al. (2021) Propose a global political
framework to improve company environmental management through the practices of the circular supply chain, highlighting
the potential for the reduction of waste and the greater efficiency of resources. This frontier in SCM emphasizes transitioning
from linear models to circular strategies that embrace sustainability in their nucleus. Despite the apparent benefits of
sustainable SCM practices, the challenges remain in the implementation. Sajjad et al. (2020) Discuss managerial barriers that
can hinder the integration of sustainable practices, particularly in various regional contexts. In addition, Gawusu et al. (2022)
indicate the need to adapt GSCM practices to different specific challenges in the sector, particularly in the renewable energy
sector.
In summary, effective supply chain management practices are crucial in improving social responsibility by promoting
sustainability, promoting ethical supply, and positively influencing communities. Since companies increasingly recognize the
interconnection of supply chain operations and social results, the demand for robust, responsible, and sustainable practices
will guide innovation and transformation into global business strategies (Xu et al., 2022). The study presents the third
hypothesis grounded in the theoretical interpretations discussed above:
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between supply chain management and social responsibility.
5. Methodology
To obtain the primary data, a questionnaire was created consisting of two sections, the first for demographic data and the
second for questionnaire phrases. The questionnaire was distributed to 43 companies in the basic materials sector, listed on
the Saudi Stock Exchange (Tadawul) ( https://www.saudiexchange.sa/), which maintained an active trading status before
2020. 430 questionnaires were sent electronically and addressed to relevant individuals within these companies using their
LinkedIn contact information. The research team initially collected 367 questionnaires; after a careful review process, 18
responses were excluded due to the identification of outliers that had the potential to distort the study's results. Consequently,
the final dataset included 349 valid responses suitable for subsequent analysis. As a preliminary procedure, a random
subsample of 60 responses was extracted before conducting statistical checks to assess the reliability and validity of the survey
instrument, using Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each variable in the study, with the overall results shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Statistical Reliability and Validity Results
Variables
Reliability Coefficient
Validity Coefficient
Supply Chain Management
70 %
84%
Economic Growth
82 %
90%
Environmental Stewardship
78 %
88%
Social Responsibility
83%
91%
For Questionnaire
78 %
88%

8
6. Results and discussion
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.90 indicates a high level of internal consistency for the questionnaire, which is above
the acceptable level of 0.60 for reliability, indicating that the items within the questionnaire measure the same underlying
construct. The reliability and validity coefficients for each of the three study variables and the overall questionnaire are all
above 0.60, as shown in Table 1. This provides strong evidence that the questionnaire has adequate reliability and validity.
This makes it suitable for statistical analysis and allows for appropriate interpretations of the collected data.
Table 2
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
0.907
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square
4915.02
df
487
Sig.
0.004
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure indicates whether the sample size used in a study is sufficient and appropriate for
conducting statistical analyses. The KMO value ranges from 0 to 1 (Thao et al., 2022), and a KMO value closer to 1 indicates
a high degree of variability within the sample data, indicating its suitability for analysis. The KMO value was 0.907, which
provides strong evidence that the sample data obtained can be used in statistical analysis. Complementing the KMO measure,
the Bartlett test assesses the strength of the correlation matrix between variables. Revell (2016) Indicates that a Bartlett value
greater than 50% indicates a strong correlation matrix, making the data suitable for latent factor analysis, and the closer the
p-value is to zero, the more appropriate the relationships between variables are. For the results of Table 2, we note that the
value of Bartlett's test reached 0.004, which indicates that the sample data is sufficient for the factorial analysis.
6.1 Measurement Validity, Reliability, and Discriminant Validity
According to Hair Jr et al. (2020), For PLS-SEM analysis, the first step involves assessing the reliability and validity of the
measurement model, including discriminant validity. Reliability was assessed through the loading rates of questionnaire items
on the latent variables and the average variance extracted (AVE). The results, as shown in Table 3 and Fig. 1, show that the
loading rates are appropriate and exceed the recommended 0.60, and the AVE values are above 0.50, thus confirming strong
reliability. Furthermore, the model's validity was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR), which
exceeded the acceptable level of 0.70, as shown in Table 3. These CA and CR rates provide evidence supporting the high
validity of the measurement model. Discriminant validity is a crucial aspect of assessing the construct validity of a
measurement instrument. It ensures that a measure is not overly correlated with other measures that it theoretically should not
be correlated with (Cheung et al., 2023). As noted by Sürücü & Maslakci (2020), a strong indicator of discriminant validity
is when a variable's correlation with itself (typically assessed using a measure of internal consistency or by comparison to a
related item within the same measure) is higher than its correlation with other variables. Table 4 provides evidence supporting
the high discriminant validity of a model. The data presented clearly show that each variable correlates more strongly with
itself than with other variables in the model, strengthening confidence that the measures have distinct constructs.
6.2 Structural Model Assessment
Researchers rely on the coefficient of determination (R²) and effect size (f²) to assess the strength of the model (Hair et al.,
2019). The R² value, which ranges from 0 to 1, measures the proportion of variance in the dependent variable explained by
the independent variable. Benchmarks indicate that an R² of 0.67 or higher indicates a strong relationship, values between
0.33 and 0.67 indicate a moderate relationship, and values between 0.19 and 0.33 indicate a weak relationship (Lin et al.,
2020).
Fig. 1. Loading rate, R² and f²

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
9
Examining the results in Table 5 and Fig. 1, the R² values reveal a weak explanation for Economic Growth at 0.252, a weak
explanation for Environmental Stewardship at 0.234, and a weak explanation for Social Responsibility at 0.049. These results
indicate that Supply Chain Management accounts for 25% of the observed variance in Economic Growth, 23% in
Environmental Stewardship, and 4% in Social Responsibility, highlighting the relevance of the linear association in these
relationships.
Table 3
Reliability, F Square, and R Square
Variables
Items
Loading
Cronbach's Alpha
Composite Reliability
Economic Growth
EG1
0.956
0.941
0.958
EG2
0.901
EG3
0.890
EG4
0.939
Environmental Stewardship
ES1
0.943
0.922
0.945
ES2
0.909
ES3
0.923
ES4
0.822
Social Responsibility
SR1
0.922
0.818
0.871
SR2
0.768
SR3
0.852
SR4
0.609
Supply Chain Management
SCM1
0.929
0.937
0.955
SCM2
0.912
SCM3
0.914
SCM4
0.911
Table 4
Discriminant Validity
Variables
Economic Growth
Environmental Stewardship
Social Responsibility
Supply Chain Management
Economic Growth
0.922
Environmental Stewardship
0.252
0.900
Social Responsibility
0.489
0.097
0.796
Supply Chain Management
0.502
0.483
0.222
0.917
Effect size (F²) determines the magnitude of the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variables (Selya et al.,
2012). Effect sizes are classified as large if (≥ 0.35), medium if (0.35-0.15), small (0.15-0.02), or no effect if (≤ 0.02).
Examination of the data in Table 5 and Fig. 1 reveals that the effect size of Supply Chain Management on Economic Growth
is 0.336, indicating a large effect according to the specified criteria. More importantly. The effect size of Supply Chain
Management on Environmental Stewardship is 0.305, indicating a medium effect and the effect size of Supply Chain
Management on Social Responsibility is 0.052, indicating a small effect.
Table 5
F Square and R Square
F Square
Economic Growth
Environmental Stewardship
Social Responsibility
Supply Chain Management
0.336
0.305
0.052
R Square
0.252
0.234
0.049
6.3 Path Analysis
The final stage of the PLS-SEM analysis involved a path analysis based on linear regression to analyze the proposed model's
relationships. This aimed to determine proposed hypothesized theories and identify direct and indirect contribution effects on
the causal relationships between independent and dependent variables. As shown in Table 6 and Figure 2 below, the results
indicate the proposed relationships as follows. Supply Chain Management has a positive direct effect on Economic Growth (β
= 0.502, t = 9.025, p = 0.000); however, the result is not significant at the level of p < 0.001, indicating to reject the first
hypothesis (H1). Supply Chain Management has a positive direct effect on Environmental Stewardship (β = 0.483, t = 7.458,
p = 0.000); however, the result is significant at the level of p < 0.001, indicating to support the second hypothesis (H2). Supply
Chain Management has a positive direct effect on Social Responsibility (β = 0.222, t = 2.608, p = 0.008); however, the result
is significant at the level of p < 0.01, indicating support for the third hypothesis (H3).
Table 6. Path Analysis Results
Hypotheses
β
T Statistics
P Values
Decision
Supply Chain Management → Economic Growth
0.502
9.025
0.000
Supported
Supply Chain Management → Environmental Stewardship
0.483
7.458
0.000
Supported
Supply Chain Management → Social Responsibility
0.222
2.608
0.008
Supported

10
Fig. 2. Path Analysis
7. Discussion
The research explores the importance of supply chains to the efficient functioning of businesses in the basic materials industry
and the important connections with economic development, social prosperity, and environmental protection in Saudi Arabia.
The findings highlight how the fundamental asymmetries lie at the heart of generating and maintaining sustainable long-term
value creation through the balanced alignment of these interconnected business elements. Through the strategic focus of
converging sustainability experiences and practice with core business activities, opportunities to achieve enhanced financial
functioning are enabled alongside contributing to meaningful social advancements. This dynamic relationship makes tangible
increases possible to be realized in terms of internal organizational development, trusted relationships between business
stakeholders, and value creation over the long term. This research study underscores the vital role of an efficient supply chain
as a pillar of growth in Saudi Arabia's commodities market. Supply chains are more than just logistical processes; they are
vital tools for achieving the country's broader goals of economic growth, social well-being, and environmental protection. By
focusing on operational efficiency, market adaptability, and financial transparency, well-functioning supply chains enable
smarter choices and unlock access to valuable economic benefits. The results also demonstrate that supply chain excellence
in these areas can significantly contribute to social responsibility and environmental sustainability in the commodities sector.
This research suggests several areas for further research, highlighting several fertile areas for study into innovative financial
instruments and a broad range of policies that will work effectively to incentivize and promote sustainability throughout all
aspects of supply chain activities. Hence, the study indicates that strategic and intentional design and management of the
supply chain are vital components in meeting Saudi Arabia's ambitious and comprehensive development vision.
8. Conclusion
This study shows how supply chain effectiveness is key in aligning the conflicting objectives of economic growth,
environmental sustainability, and social responsibility of basic materials companies listed on the Saudi stock market. Basic
materials companies still struggle to balance profitability and sustainability, and the results suggest that strong supply chain
practices give companies a competitive advantage that enables them to operate profitably and sustainably. Supply chain
practices can be strategically improved by carefully assessing current practices and identifying areas for improvement. Supply
chain management in the basic materials sector should expand policies supporting economic, social, and environmental
sustainability. Strategic improvement of supply chains constitutes methods for sustainable best practices. Adopting
sustainability and supply chains will align with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030. Future research should focus on how effective
supply chain management impacts sustainable practices in other operational contexts and industries and how these concepts
can be implemented.
Acknowledgment
This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2025/R/1446).
References
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., & Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study. International
Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.007
Ahmed, W., Ashraf, M. S., Khan, S. A., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Arhin, F. K., Kusi-Sarpong, H., & Najmi, A. (2020). Analyzing
the impact of environmental collaboration among supply chain stakeholders on a firm's sustainable performance.
Operations Management Research, 13, 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00152-1
Alghababsheh, M., & Gallear, D. (2021). Socially sustainable supply chain management and suppliers' social performance:
The role of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(4), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04525-1

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
11
Al-Ghwayeen, W. S., & Abdallah, A. B. (2018). Green supply chain management and export performance: The mediating
role of environmental performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(7), 1233–1252.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-03-2018-0079
Alzoubi, H. M., & Ahmed, G. (2020). Empirical study on sustainable supply chain strategies and its impact on competitive
priorities: The mediating role of supply chain collaboration. Management Science Letters, 10(3), 703–708.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.9.008
Amicarelli, V., Bux, C., & Fiore, M. (2024). Guest editorial: Circular economy in the agri-food, tourism and hospitality
industries in the post-pandemic era. British Food Journal, 126(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-01-2024-369
Amoako, G. K., Doe, J. K., & Dzogbenuku, R. K. (2021). Perceived firm ethicality and brand loyalty: the mediating role of
corporate social responsibility and perceived green marketing. Society and Business Review, 16(3), 398–419.
https://doi.org/10.1108/sbr-05-2020-0076
Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Xu, L., Dhamija, P., & Kayikci, Y. (2020). Big data analytics as an operational excellence approach to
enhance sustainable supply chain performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104559.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104559
Bai, C., Dallasega, P., Orzes, G., & Sarkis, J. (2020). Industry 4.0 technologies assessment: A sustainability perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 229, 107776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107776
Bastas, A., & Liyanage, K. (2018). Sustainable supply chain quality management: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 181, 726–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.110
Bengtsson, E., & Stockhammer, E. (2021). Wages, income distribution and economic growth: long-run perspectives in
Scandinavia, 1900–2010. Review of Political Economy, 33(4), 725–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2020.1860307
Beske, P., & Seuring, S. (2014). Putting sustainability into supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 19(3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-12-2013-0432
Blome, C., Paulraj, A., & Schuetz, K. (2014). Supply chain collaboration and sustainability: a profile deviation analysis.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(5), 639–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-11-2012-
0515
Brewer, M. K. (2019). Slow fashion in a fast fashion world: Promoting sustainability and responsibility. Laws, 8(4), 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws8040024
Bux, H., Zhang, Z., & Ali, A. (2024). Corporate social responsibility adoption for achieving economic, environmental, and
social sustainability performance. Environment, Development and Sustainability, , 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
024-05155-7
Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal
of Operations Management, 29(3), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Maglietta, A., & Oropallo, E. (2023). Sailing through a digital and resilient shipbuilding supply
chain: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113686.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113686
Chan, E. S. (2021). Influencing stakeholders to reduce carbon footprints: Hotel managers' perspective. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 94, 102807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102807
Charu, C. (2006). Special issue of Human Systems Management (HSM) Call for papers for a HSM special issue entitled:
Towards the Transition from Supply Chains to Alliance and Supply Networks: Concepts, Models and Methodologies.
Human Systems Management, 25(2), 159–160. https://doi.org/10.3233/hsm-2006-25209
Chen, J. (2022). Responsible sourcing and supply chain traceability. International Journal of Production Economics, 248,
108462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108462
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant
validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management,41(2), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
Chin, T. A., Tat, H. H., & Sulaiman, Z. (2015). Green supply chain management, environmental collaboration and
sustainability performance. Procedia Cirp, 26, 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.035
Christopher, M., Lowson, R., & Peck, H. (2004). Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(8), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550410546188
Cope, Z. A., Vazey, E. M., Floresco, S. B., & Jones, G. S. A. (2019). DREADD-mediated modulation of locus coeruleus
inputs to mPFC improves strategy set-shifting. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 161, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2019.02.009
Coyle, J. J., Novack, R. A., Gibson, B. J., & Langley, C. J. (2021). Supply chain management: a logistics perspective. Cengage
Learning.
David, A., Addo, S. K., & Isaac, Y. K. (2024). Effect of green procurement practices on financial performance. African
Journal of Procurement, Logistics & Supply Chain Management, 7(8), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajplscm.v7i8.2
De Angelis, R., Howard, M., & Miemczyk, J. (2018). Supply chain management and the circular economy: towards the
circular supply chain. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449244
Dorsch, M. T., & Kirkpatrick, B. (2021). Economic growth, inequality and environmental degradation. International Journal
of Sustainable Development, 24(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2021.118844

12
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2017). World class sustainable supply
chain management: Critical review and further research directions. The International Journal of Logistics Management,
28(2), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-07-2015-0112
Elansari, H., Alzubi, A., & Khadem, A. (2024). The Impact of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on Customers'
Perceptions and Loyalty in the Banking Sector: A Multi-Mediation Approach. Sustainability, 16(18), 8276.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188276
Esfahbodi, A., Zhang, Y., & Watson, G. (2016). Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies: Trade-offs
between environmental and cost performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 350–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.013
Fallah Shayan, N., Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Alavi, S., & Zahed, M. A. (2022). Sustainable development goals (SDGs) as a
framework for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Sustainability, 14(3), 1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031222
Fang, Y., & Côté, R. P. (2005). Towards sustainability: Objectives, strategies and barriers for cleaner production in China.
The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(4), 443–460.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500509469653
Galanton, N. (2024). Lanțul de aprovizionare circular: o schimbare de paradigmă către managementul durabil al resurselor.
Vector European, (01), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.52507/2345-1106.2024-1.15
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics,
53(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:busi.0000039399.90587.34
Gawusu, S., Zhang, X., Jamatutu, S. A., Ahmed, A., Amadu, A. A., & Djam Miensah, E. (2022). The dynamics of green
supply chain management within the framework of renewable energy. International Journal of Energy Research, 46(2),
684–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7278
Ghadge, A., Weiß, M., Caldwell, N. D., & Wilding, R. (2020). Managing cyber risk in supply chains: a review and research
agenda. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 25(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-10-2018-0357
Giannakis, M., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016). Supply chain sustainability: A risk management approach. International Journal
of Production Economics, 171, 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.06.032
Gomes, J. G. C., Okano, M. T., Guerra, R. S., Cordeiro, D. d. S., Santos, H. C. L. d., & Fernandes, M. E. (2022). Analysis of
sustainable business models: Exploratory study in two Brazilian logistics companies. Sustainability, 14(2), 694.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020694
Govindan, K. (2018). Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework.
International Journal of Production Economics, 195, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.03.003
Govindan, K., & Hasanagic, M. (2018). A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a
supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 56(1-2), 278–311.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1402141
Gowen Iii, C. R., & Tallon, W. J. (2003). Enhancing supply chain practices through human resource management. Journal of
Management Development, 22(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710310454842
Hair Jr, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory
composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. Black (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.
European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203
Hall, J., & Matos, S. (2010). Incorporating impoverished communities in sustainable supply chains. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(1/2), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031011020368
Heal, G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: An economic and financial framework. The Geneva Papers on Risk and
Insurance-Issues and Practice, 30(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.gpp.2510037
Hines, T. (2014). Supply chain strategies: Demand driven and customer focused. Routledge.
Hong, J., Zhang, Y., & Ding, M. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic capabilities,
and enterprise performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3508–3519.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.093
Hunter, L. M. (2005). Migration and environmental hazards. Population and Environment, 26, 273–302.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-005-3343-x
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply
chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.001
Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A. A., & de Souza Freitas, W. R. (2013). Environmental
management and operational performance in automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management
and lean manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.010
Kalkanci, B., Rahmani, M., & Toktay, L. B. (2019). The role of inclusive innovation in promoting social sustainability.
Production and Operations Management, 28(12), 2960–2982. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13112
Kazancoglu, Y., Sezer, M. D., Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D., Mangla, S. K., & Kumar, A. (2021). Industry 4.0 impacts on responsible
environmental and societal management in the family business. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173,
121108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121108

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
13
Khan, S. A. R., & Qianli, D. (2017). Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms' performance: an empirical
study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 16829–16844.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9172-5
Khan, S. A. R., Zhang, Y., Anees, M., Golpîra, H., Lahmar, A., & Qianli, D. (2018). Green supply chain management,
economic growth and environment: A GMM based evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 588–599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.226
Khan, S. A. R., Zhang, Y., & Nathaniel, S. (2020). Green supply chain performance and environmental sustainability: A panel
study. LogForum, 16(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.17270/j.log.2020.394
Khokhar, M., Hou, Y., Rafique, M. A., & Iqbal, W. (2020). Evaluating the social sustainability criteria of supply chain
management in manufacturing industries: a role of BWM in MCDM. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 15(2), 185–194.
https://doi.org/10.35784/pe.2020.2.18
Koberg, E., & Longoni, A. (2019). A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 1084–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.033
Kumar, P., Singh, R. K., & Kumar, V. (2021). Managing supply chains for sustainable operations in the era of industry 4.0
and circular economy: Analysis of barriers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105215
Larson, P. D., Poist, R. F., & Halldórsson, Á. (2007). Perspectives on logistics vs. SCM: a survey of SCM professionals.
Journal of Business Logistics, 28(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2007.tb00230.x
Lèbre, É, Corder, G. D., & Golev, A. (2017). Sustainable practices in the management of mining waste: A focus on the mineral
resource. Minerals Engineering, 107, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2016.12.004
Li, L., Wang, Z., Chen, L., Zhao, X., & Yang, S. (2023). Supply chain collaboration and supply chain finance adoption: the
moderating role of information transparency and transaction dependence. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 28(4), 710–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-04-2022-0169
Lim, M. K., Tseng, M., Tan, K. H., & Bui, T. D. (2017). Knowledge management in sustainable supply chain management:
Improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 806–
816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.056
Lin, H., Lee, M., Liang, J., Chang, H., Huang, P., & Tsai, C. (2020). A review of using partial least square structural equation
modeling in e‐learning research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1354–1372.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12890
Lin, J., Chen, Q., & Kawamura, K. (2016). Sustainability SI: logistics cost and environmental impact analyses of urban
delivery consolidation strategies. Networks and Spatial Economics, 16, 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-
9235-9
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2015). Environmental and social sustainability priorities: Their integration in operations
strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(2), 216–245.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-04-2013-0182
Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (2018). Deploying environmental management across functions: the relationship
between green human resource management and green supply chain management. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4),
1081–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3228-1
Luzzini, D., Longoni, A., & Guerci, M. (2014). Green HRM and SCM practices and their effects on environmental and
economic performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1) 13491.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.13491abstract
Mahmood, H., Hassan, M. S., Meraj, G., Mahmood, H., Hassan, M. S., Meraj, G., & Furqan, M. (2024). Agriculture's Role
in Environmental Sustainability: A Comprehensive Review of Challenges and Solutions. Challenges in Sustainability,
12(3), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120302
Malik, S. Y., Hayat Mughal, Y., Azam, T., Cao, Y., Wan, Z., Zhu, H., & Thurasamy, R. (2021). Corporate social
responsibility, green human resources management, and sustainable performance: is organizational citizenship behavior
towards environment the missing link? Sustainability, 13(3), 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031044
Mangan, J., & Lalwani, C. (2016). Global logistics and supply chain management. John Wiley & Sons.
Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N. P., Dora, M., & Dwivedi, Y. (2018). Barriers to effective circular
supply chain management in a developing country context. Production Planning & Control, 29(6), 551–569.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449265
Mangmeechai, A. (2020). Life-cycle greenhouse gas and value chain of end-of-life vehicle management in Thailand. Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy,24(4), 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01953-5
Mejías, A. M., Paz, E., & Pardo, J. E. (2016). Efficiency and sustainability through the best practices in the Logistics Social
Responsibility framework. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(2), 164–199.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-07-2014-0301
Modak, N. M., Kazemi, N., & Cárdenas-Barrón, L. E. (2019). Investigating structure of a two-echelon closed-loop supply
chain using social work donation as a Corporate Social Responsibility practice. International Journal of Production
Economics, 207, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.10.009
Modica, P. D., Altinay, L., Farmaki, A., Gursoy, D., & Zenga, M. (2020). Consumer perceptions towards sustainable supply
chain practices in the hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(3), 358–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1526258

14
Mohammed, A., Zubairu, N., Yazdani, M., Diabat, A., & Li, X. (2023). Resilient supply chain network design without lagging
sustainability responsibilities. Applied Soft Computing, 140, 110225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110225
Morais, D. O., & Silvestre, B. S. (2018). Advancing social sustainability in supply chain management: Lessons from multiple
case studies in an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 222–235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.097
Mota, B., Gomes, M. I., Carvalho, A., & Barbosa-Povoa, A. P. (2015). Towards supply chain sustainability: economic,
environmental and social design and planning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 14–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.052
Mouzas, S. (2016). Performance based contracting in long-term supply relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 59,
50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.05.028
Negri, M., Cagno, E., Colicchia, C., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A
systematic literature review and a research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 2858–2886.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2776
Nguyen, T. T., Grote, U., Neubacher, F., Do, M. H., & Paudel, G. P. (2023). Security risks from climate change and
environmental degradation: implications for sustainable land use transformation in the Global South. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 63, 101322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101322
Ozola, Z. U., Vesere, R., Kalnins, S. N., & Blumberga, D. (2019). Paper waste recycling. circular economy aspects. Rigas
Tehniskas Universitates Zinatniskie Raksti, 23(3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2019-0094
Potočan, V., Mulej, M., & Nedelko, Z. (2021). Society 5.0: balancing of Industry 4.0, economic advancement and social
problems. Kybernetes, 50(3), 794–811. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-12-2019-0858
Price, R., & Ross, C. (2014). A better deal for consumers and an attractive environment for investors: The regulators'
perspective on the development and use of regulatory and competition powers. Utilities Policy, 31, 178–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2014.09.012
Qrunfleh, S., & Tarafdar, M. (2014). Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts on supply chain performance and
firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 340–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.09.018
Rajeev, A., Pati, R. K., Padhi, S. S., & Govindan, K. (2017). Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A
literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.026
Rau, H., Budiman, S. D., & Monteiro, C. N. (2021). Improving the sustainability of a reverse supply chain system under
demand uncertainty by using postponement strategies. Waste Management, 131, 72–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.05.018
Revelle, W. (2016). How to: Use the psych package for factor analysis and data reduction. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University, Department of Psychology,
Rodríguez‐Fernández, M., Gaspar‐González, A. I., & Sánchez‐Teba, E. M. (2020). Sustainable social responsibility through
stakeholders' engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 2425–2436. http
s://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2023
Rogers, K. A., & Rogers, D. L. (1998). The Politics of Long-Term Highly Radioactive Waste Disposal. Midsouth Political
Science Review, 2, 61–71.
Roy, V., Schoenherr, T., & Charan, P. (2018). The thematic landscape of literature in sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM): A review of the principal facets in SSCM development. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 38(4), 1091–1124. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-05-2017-0260
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G., & Tappin, D. (2020). Managerial perspectives on drivers for and barriers to sustainable supply chain
management implementation: Evidence from New Zealand. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 592–604.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2389
Sandra Marcelline, T. R., Chengang, Y., Ralison Ny Avotra, A. A., Hussain, Z., Zonia, J. E., & Nawaz, A. (2022). Impact of
green construction procurement on achieving sustainable economic growth influencing green logistic services
management and innovation practices. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 815928.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.815928
Selya, A. S., Rose, J. S., Dierker, L. C., Hedeker, D., & Mermelstein, R. J. (2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen'sf
2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 111.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00111
Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Müller, M., & Rao, P. (2008). Sustainability and supply chain management–an introduction to the
special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1545–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.002
Shad, M. K., Lai, F., Fatt, C. L., Klemeš, J. J., & Bokhari, A. (2019). Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk
management and its relationship with business performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production,
208, 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.120
Simão, L. E., Gonçalves, M. B., & Rodriguez, C. M. T. (2016). An approach to assess logistics and ecological supply chain
performance using postponement strategies. Ecological Indicators, 63, 398–408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.048
Stevens, G. C., & Johnson, M. (2016). Integrating the supply chain… 25 years on. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpdlm-07-2015-0175

A. Abdelraheem et al. / Journal of Project Management 10 (2025)
15
Sürücü, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An
International Journal, 8(3), 2694–2726. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540
Sweeney, E., Grant, D. B., & Mangan, D. J. (2018). Strategic adoption of logistics and supply chain management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3), 852–873. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-05-2016-
0258
Thao, N. T. P., Van Tan, N., & Tuyet, M. T. A. (2022). KMO and Bartlett's test for components of workers' working
motivation and loyalty at enterprises in Dong Nai Province of Vietnam. International Transaction Journal of Engineering,
Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 13(10), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.14456/ITJEMAST.2022.202
Thomson, A. M., Ramsey, S., Barnes, E., Basso, B., Eve, M., Gennet, S., Grassini, P., Kliethermes, B., Matlock, M., &
McClellen, E. (2017). Science in the supply chain: collaboration opportunities for advancing sustainable agriculture in the
United States. Agricultural & Environmental Letters, 2(1), 170015. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2017.05.0015
Thorlakson, T., De Zegher, J. F., & Lambin, E. F. (2018). Companies' contribution to sustainability through global supply
chains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(9), 2072–2077. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716695115
Turker, D., & Altuntas, C. (2014). Sustainable supply chain management in the fast fashion industry: An analysis of corporate
reports. European Management Journal, 32(5), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.02.001
van Hoek, R., Godsell, J., & Harrison, A. (2011). Embedding "insights from industry" in supply chain programmes: the role
of guest lecturers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(2), 142–147.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541111115383
Varsei, M., Soosay, C., Fahimnia, B., & Sarkis, J. (2014). Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with
multidimensional indicators. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(3), 242–257.
https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-12-2013-0436
Waked, S., Aljaaidi, K., & Alanazi, I. (2023). Supply chain management strategies, management accounting practices and
firm's growth. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 11(3), 1213–1222. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2023.4.001
Wang, C., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, W. (2020). Corporate social responsibility, green supply chain management and firm
performance: The moderating role of big-data analytics capability. Research in Transportation Business & Management,
37, 100557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100557
Wang, Y., & Shen, N. (2016). Environmental regulation and environmental productivity: The case of China. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 758–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.048
Xu, J., Yu, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, J. Z., Liu, Y., Cao, Y., & Eachempati, P. (2022). Green supply chain management for
operational performance: anteceding impact of corporate social responsibility and moderating effects of relational capital.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 35(6), 1613–1638. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-06-2021-0260
Yang, X. (2024). The Impact of Digital Sharing Platforms on Supply Chain Management: Efficiency, cost reduction, and
market responsiveness. Paper presented at the SHS Web of Conferences, 208, 02017.
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202420802017
Yawar, S. A., & Seuring, S. (2017). Management of social issues in supply chains: a literature review exploring social issues,
actions and performance outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 621–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-
2719-9
Yildiz Çankaya, S., & Sezen, B. (2019). Effects of green supply chain management practices on sustainability performance.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(1), 98–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmtm-03-2018-0099
Yousefian, M., Bascompta, M., Sanmiquel, L., & Vintró, C. (2023). Corporate social responsibility and economic growth in
the mining industry. The Extractive Industries and Society, 13, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101226
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., & Wiengarten, F. (2014). Integrated green supply chain management and operational
performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-07-
2013-0225
Yuan, B., & Cao, X. (2022). Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green innovation? The mediating role
of green dynamic capability. Technology in Society, 68, 101868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101868
Zaid, A. A., Jaaron, A. A., & Bon, A. T. (2018). The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain
management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 965–979.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.062
Zailani, S., Jeyaraman, K., Vengadasan, G., & Premkumar, R. (2012). Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in
Malaysia: A survey. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 330–340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.02.008
Zheng, X., & Li, D. (2023). A new biform game-based investment incentive mechanism for eco-efficient innovation in supply
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 258, 108795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2023.108795
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y., & Choi, S. (2017). The role of customer relational governance in environmental and economic performance
improvement through green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 46–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.124
Zhu, Z., Jia, Z., Peng, L., Chen, Q., He, L., Jiang, Y., & Ge, S. (2018). Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic
apple production systems in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 156–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.032

16
Zuñiga-Collazos, A., Obando, J. F. R., & Sánchez, A. R.Determining factors of regional tourism development based on public
policy management. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(12), 8591.
https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i12.8591
© 2025 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY)
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).